The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Harsoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0531-165]
| Citation | 2017-LL-0531-165 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 |
| Respondent Name | Harsoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 31/05/2017 |
| Assessment Year | 2008-09 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | additional depreciation • additional evidence • revenue expenditure • question of law • insurance claim • processing charges • loan transaction • admissibility of deduction |
| Bot Summary: | As far as appeal concerning AY 2008-09 is concerned, two questions have been urged by the Revenue: 2.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. ITAT/CIT(A) erred in allowing additional depreciation under section 32(l)(iia) of the Act on electrical items, tools and dies and moulds 2.2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. ITAT/CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction u/s IOB on account of proceeding charges, insurance claim and discount received from suppliers 5. As rightly pointed out by the ITAT, since the depreciation has been allowed on the same electrical goods, the question of not disallowing additional depreciation does not stand proved. No question of law is framed on this issue. As regards the second question, it is rightly pointed out by the ITAT that such expenditure is clearly allowable. No question of law arises on this issue. As far as appeal for AY 2009-10 is concerned, the additional question relates to the ITAT holding the swap charges and loan processing charges as revenue expenditure by admitting additional evidence, without providing any opportunity to the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, there was no error committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax CIT(A) in allowing the swap charges as revenue expenditure. |